Slashdot Mirror
Court Case To Test Legality of Recording the Police With Your Cell Phone
suraj.sun sends this excerpt from Ars Technica:
"If you pull out your cell phone to make a video of police officers arresting a suspect, are you 'secretly recording' them? 'No' seems like the obvious answer, but that's precisely the claim that three police officers made to justify their arrest of a Boston man. In arguments before the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on Wednesday, the city also denied the man's claim that his First or Fourth Amendment rights had been violated. The case will be an important test of whether the Constitution protects individuals' right to record the police while they are on duty. Many states have 'one-party notification' wiretapping laws that allow any party to a conversation to secretly record it. But under the strict 'two-party notification' laws in Massachusetts, it's a crime to 'secretly record' audio communications unless 'all parties to such communication' have given their consent. The police arrested Glik for breaking this law. For good measure, they also charged Glik—who did no more than stand a few feet away with his cell phone—with 'aiding the escape of a prisoner' and 'disturbing the peace.'"
It's a good thing the US was founded with the notion of check and balances so as to prevent abuse of power...
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
when performing official duties for the good of the public.
If their supervisor showed up, they'd have to fully disclose everything which they were doing, ditto internal affairs, the police chief / superintendent, or a government functionary whose bailiwick involved the performance of their current duties.
If they have something to hide, which they don't want revealed in court, they need to find some other line of work.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
It seems like this is a tough argument, considering that the police have already consented to being recorded by cameras in their cars-- and I wonder if at any point a Mass. driver has officially consented to being recorded by those cameras.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
So getting freedom fondled by the TSA is okay, but recording official agents on official business representing the government is a no go?
Yeah, right...
What the police do is police business, not yours. Glik should be thankful he wasn't dealing with Officer Bubbles.
Hopefully the First Circuit court doesn't forget their 1999 ruling in Iacobucci v. Boulter where the upheld the right to record public figures on public property. But according to the article the judges seem to find the reasoning of the city to be quite absurd so that is a good sign.
In the event that the outcome goes the wrong way, all that's needed is for enough campaign groups on both sides of the political spectrum to encourage their supporters to routinely record the police whenever they see them, providing they are in groups of more than some particular size and providing their camera streams to a remote server.
R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy brought the saying to English law that it is not enough that justice must be done - it must also be seen to be done. The principle is about impartiality and appeared before video cameras, but surely preventing or destroying any recording of a police officer acting in public under colour of law is, "creat[ing] a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice."
The charges against him were dropped. This is a case brought by him against the City and the police.
Yet the jury is given such specific instructions that if they don't know their rights as a juror before serving on the jury, then the judge has nearly complete control over what happens.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
The law bans *secret* recording without consent. Otherwise, it would be illegal for a company to record tech support calls without specifically asking for consent (saying that you're recording makes it non-secret, but doesn't mean that anyone consented).
Of course, once you ask for consent it's not secret anymore I suppose...
The point here is that the guy was pointing the phone right at the cops, and the cops are arguing that's not sufficient to tell that he's recording.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
Agreed, and in addition, the destruction or attempted destruction of civilian video of law enforcement activity by any interested party (including government agents or subjects of the police activity) should be considered destruction of evidence, and treated accordingly. It should also be possible to subpoena the contents of this video by any interested party.
Patrol car video should continue recording for at least 10 minutes after the stop recording event happens (no turning the camera off and on during a stop), and it should be illegal for a police officer to intentionally attempt to prevent the recording via any means.
In sort, recordings on both sides should be used to protect either party of a police action, not just the police officer.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
If a news crew happen to be in the area and record what happens, are they violating the law also? Perhaps some legal expert can explain the difference to me.
Proverbs 21:19
At least that's what the police tell me.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
What if this was a reporter who happened to witness the same scenario and they had their camera guy there? Would they also be charged with this bullshit?
"No one will really be free until nerd persecution ends."
The charges were dropped, of course, since they had no chance of standing up in court. The point was to intimidate the guy and put him in jail. The problem is that cops can just arrest you for a bogus charge and then drop the charges later. You get screwed anyway.
there will always be cases of injustice but that is no reason to condemn the entire system.
Um, isn't that PRECISELY a reason to condemn the entire system?! Isn't that pretty much the ONLY reason to condemn an entire system?
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
...and what exactly is wrong with Mr. Heinlein's works? :)
Robert A. Heinlein had some great ideas as to how government really should have been. Actually READ Starship Troopers, not the movie named after the book. In it, in order to vote, one had to complete either military service, or at least some form of "Federal Service". This included Teaching, as all teachers were paid directly by the Federal level of government, not the city/county/state level of government. Heinlein was VERY ahead of his time, and it's a shame that here we are, well into the 21st century, and we're about as socially/politically backwards as we were 30 years ago.
Not looking for flamebait, just saying...
Stone